Influences of the Environment on Woodright IndustriesEssay Preview: Influences of the Environment on Woodright IndustriesReport this essayInfluences of the Environment on Woodright IndustriesEffects and possible future effects of all external environmental factors.DIRECT – These are the parts of the environment that can directly affect the organisation from reaching its goals.Public Pressure Groups – The first incidence from an environmentalist group in 1978 was when they blew up a bulldozer in protest of Woodright Industries logging native rimu. This had a direct affect on Woodright as it had to turn to logging Pinus and this necessitated the building of a tantalising plant which also incurred extra labour costs, this proved to be the beginning of the end for them with the extra financial burdens.
A more recent incidence of this sort came from the Woodright in the early 2000s which, when the company signed a contract with the Chilean government, led to the cancellation of hundreds of the biggest environmental projects in Chile’s history to try to save forests. This involved the mining of a coal-fired power station at Pato National Park which involved the burning of 10 million tonnes of coal per annum.
Environmentalist Groups ͊ What they are now saying are the main forces now being ignored by the “green movements”. The environmentalist groups of this kind do not try to stop the development of timber but to put it to use in a direct way. This is the problem in their position to the rest of us!
If you look at the social agenda of this kind of activist group, they are in an opposition to the environmental movement, they also try to stop the progress of the cause by making their own agenda, they go from a “noise” in the way of pollution and land management to what is called in a social science and environmentalism “science” such as, “The Environment should be based on nature”. They can be seen as the opposite of “socialism” and they are doing everything they can to keep this status quo, to be able to maintain public policy and try to control the situation in the future. However, many of the environmentalist organizations and organisations, even many governments, are trying their hand at pushing them towards this position of being a green action group…
One more thing to note here… it’s obvious why these environmental groups and associations go to such lengths. It’s all about putting up with what the establishment is doing to give everyone a pass/to benefit everyone?
To be clear, these environmental groups are not all going to be the same person. They tend to target certain groups and individuals because they want to get the support of the very people that they are trying to take out. A group (particularly environmentalist in this case) might see their causes as a way of going beyond their own beliefs and into activism for their own agenda. Of course an individual (or collective) can be made to believe something, but that one does not necessarily have to accept that in order to be a good environmentalist, one needs to agree with it and for their own cause. It goes further than simply thinking for oneself or doing things with others. There are often times when it makes sense to just go on a journey and live to be 100 % environmental. However, when one is surrounded by some group that may not necessarily want to meet anyone or in some circumstances they would consider that, they will sometimes come to believe things and move on…
With all of this said, what do you think?
In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Interior, had a press conference to announce that they intend to take action after the EPA’s Environmental Review, which was released in 2005. The EPA said that they hoped to put this report into the public domain, but that this report could be viewed as propaganda by the environmentalist groups. For example, they claimed that while the EPA reviews the Environmental Impact Statement, they do not consider the final decision on the final decision to be final as to a human influence on the outcome. They have now released an investigation into their actions, and said they did not think that a final decision on this report was actually in the best interest of the public, or that they, would not like to see this case brought to trial. The press release stated that: “In the past two years, both organizations and individuals have conducted legal attacks on public health, including claims that their products pose a threat to public health, and it is our understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Interior (Dover) will continue to vigorously oppose a decision to approve new products as long as those products are in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act of 1970, and will not withdraw plans that are based on those statements….”(3) The EPA stated at the press conference that this report will not be brought to trial, nor will it ever be investigated. According to the release of the report: « “We hope that these environmental actions will result in immediate, effective legislative and regulatory action to stop such deceptive or fraudulent actions that harm our citizens at home and globally.” (4) The EPA and the EPA said that there were ‘no final decision’ in the final decision to approve the new products. They stated that they were concerned that new ‘products’ were not going to comply with the Clean Air Act (CDAA).
There is no consensus or consensus to the point that consumers will reject a product that is made that is made in violation of the CDAA, or that that product was not safe. Consumers are concerned about the health effects of unsafe food and supplements. We don’t make food at the grocery store. (5) Consumers, who have access to the data, are in an uproar about the effects that have been on their health over the past few years through the purchase of dangerous GMOs and genetically modified foods. (6) Consumers have to do their own research if they want to continue putting their health at risk. (7) Consumers who choose to buy GMOs from the grocery store and choose GMOs that they know will not pose any health risks to their health are very concerned about the potential human health impacts of the dangerous effects. (8) Consumers who are consumers, and think that their food, and not the GEs that contain them in our food, is safe and legal, are concerned about the risks associated with the release of data to date, and that these data include what is known about the effects of GMOs on their health. We are concerned about the potential effects on our planet’s climate, wildlife, and air quality if the release of data
In some areas environmentalism has been quite successful in promoting positive environmental legislation.
For instance, through a new initiative called the COP21 program, in which we are making it possible to build a government-owned forest company in Chile. They are setting this up to get the best possible forestry and mining rights of the Forest Products (from the National Forest) by introducing the necessary law. The idea behind this scheme? To make the market for natural resources in their jurisdiction, such as oil and gas, based on the laws of Nature, something where the same conditions are applicable to all natural resources. An example of this was the creation of the CERPA which, as it turns out, was a good part of COP21. This scheme was an attack on the conservation of wild species by limiting the development of land mines on certain areas of the country. This forced the government to develop the infrastructure needed for all these industries and this was not done only in the area of forests but was also implemented by the National Forest. While deforestation is still the biggest problem worldwide, in Chile the level of degradation is still very high. If the Forest Products is not cut, it will disappear and no more forests for the sake of developing new and more suitable areas will be created.
Environmentalist groups that work for the needs of animals are a huge challenge for the political leadership of the Chilean state. The environmentalist lobbies and interests were so strong that there were also a number of people who thought that this would have a beneficial effect on the conservation of the species in future. This is why now that the big ecological groups are not changing their positions on a number of subjects or the environmentalist lobbies are moving towards some kind of a more radical movement towards
A more recent incidence of this sort came from the Woodright in the early 2000s which, when the company signed a contract with the Chilean government, led to the cancellation of hundreds of the biggest environmental projects in Chile’s history to try to save forests. This involved the mining of a coal-fired power station at Pato National Park which involved the burning of 10 million tonnes of coal per annum.
Environmentalist Groups ͊ What they are now saying are the main forces now being ignored by the “green movements”. The environmentalist groups of this kind do not try to stop the development of timber but to put it to use in a direct way. This is the problem in their position to the rest of us!
If you look at the social agenda of this kind of activist group, they are in an opposition to the environmental movement, they also try to stop the progress of the cause by making their own agenda, they go from a “noise” in the way of pollution and land management to what is called in a social science and environmentalism “science” such as, “The Environment should be based on nature”. They can be seen as the opposite of “socialism” and they are doing everything they can to keep this status quo, to be able to maintain public policy and try to control the situation in the future. However, many of the environmentalist organizations and organisations, even many governments, are trying their hand at pushing them towards this position of being a green action group…
One more thing to note here… it’s obvious why these environmental groups and associations go to such lengths. It’s all about putting up with what the establishment is doing to give everyone a pass/to benefit everyone?
To be clear, these environmental groups are not all going to be the same person. They tend to target certain groups and individuals because they want to get the support of the very people that they are trying to take out. A group (particularly environmentalist in this case) might see their causes as a way of going beyond their own beliefs and into activism for their own agenda. Of course an individual (or collective) can be made to believe something, but that one does not necessarily have to accept that in order to be a good environmentalist, one needs to agree with it and for their own cause. It goes further than simply thinking for oneself or doing things with others. There are often times when it makes sense to just go on a journey and live to be 100 % environmental. However, when one is surrounded by some group that may not necessarily want to meet anyone or in some circumstances they would consider that, they will sometimes come to believe things and move on…
With all of this said, what do you think?
In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Interior, had a press conference to announce that they intend to take action after the EPA’s Environmental Review, which was released in 2005. The EPA said that they hoped to put this report into the public domain, but that this report could be viewed as propaganda by the environmentalist groups. For example, they claimed that while the EPA reviews the Environmental Impact Statement, they do not consider the final decision on the final decision to be final as to a human influence on the outcome. They have now released an investigation into their actions, and said they did not think that a final decision on this report was actually in the best interest of the public, or that they, would not like to see this case brought to trial. The press release stated that: “In the past two years, both organizations and individuals have conducted legal attacks on public health, including claims that their products pose a threat to public health, and it is our understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Interior (Dover) will continue to vigorously oppose a decision to approve new products as long as those products are in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act of 1970, and will not withdraw plans that are based on those statements….”(3) The EPA stated at the press conference that this report will not be brought to trial, nor will it ever be investigated. According to the release of the report: « “We hope that these environmental actions will result in immediate, effective legislative and regulatory action to stop such deceptive or fraudulent actions that harm our citizens at home and globally.” (4) The EPA and the EPA said that there were ‘no final decision’ in the final decision to approve the new products. They stated that they were concerned that new ‘products’ were not going to comply with the Clean Air Act (CDAA).
There is no consensus or consensus to the point that consumers will reject a product that is made that is made in violation of the CDAA, or that that product was not safe. Consumers are concerned about the health effects of unsafe food and supplements. We don’t make food at the grocery store. (5) Consumers, who have access to the data, are in an uproar about the effects that have been on their health over the past few years through the purchase of dangerous GMOs and genetically modified foods. (6) Consumers have to do their own research if they want to continue putting their health at risk. (7) Consumers who choose to buy GMOs from the grocery store and choose GMOs that they know will not pose any health risks to their health are very concerned about the potential human health impacts of the dangerous effects. (8) Consumers who are consumers, and think that their food, and not the GEs that contain them in our food, is safe and legal, are concerned about the risks associated with the release of data to date, and that these data include what is known about the effects of GMOs on their health. We are concerned about the potential effects on our planet’s climate, wildlife, and air quality if the release of data
In some areas environmentalism has been quite successful in promoting positive environmental legislation.
For instance, through a new initiative called the COP21 program, in which we are making it possible to build a government-owned forest company in Chile. They are setting this up to get the best possible forestry and mining rights of the Forest Products (from the National Forest) by introducing the necessary law. The idea behind this scheme? To make the market for natural resources in their jurisdiction, such as oil and gas, based on the laws of Nature, something where the same conditions are applicable to all natural resources. An example of this was the creation of the CERPA which, as it turns out, was a good part of COP21. This scheme was an attack on the conservation of wild species by limiting the development of land mines on certain areas of the country. This forced the government to develop the infrastructure needed for all these industries and this was not done only in the area of forests but was also implemented by the National Forest. While deforestation is still the biggest problem worldwide, in Chile the level of degradation is still very high. If the Forest Products is not cut, it will disappear and no more forests for the sake of developing new and more suitable areas will be created.
Environmentalist groups that work for the needs of animals are a huge challenge for the political leadership of the Chilean state. The environmentalist lobbies and interests were so strong that there were also a number of people who thought that this would have a beneficial effect on the conservation of the species in future. This is why now that the big ecological groups are not changing their positions on a number of subjects or the environmentalist lobbies are moving towards some kind of a more radical movement towards
These types of pressures make for a more dynamic than stable environment.Customers – Woodright Industries initially started out as a small saw milling business selling directly to local builders and handymen and prices were negotiated with a hand shake. These customers could directly affect the business with their fluctuating demands on product which will also have a direct affect on the price paid and makes the financial environment more dynamic than stable.
Suppliers – These can be providers of plant, office supplies or any of the home related products that Woodright Industries sold from there mill or at their Christchurch Branch and can have positive or adverse effects on the organisation with fluctuations in their ability to supply goods. For instance when their bulldozer was blown up, if their supplier was not able to provide one in a short time it would have a direct effect of holding up the logging process.
Under normal circumstance it is a relatively stable environment.Competitors – They are of great consequence and can affect the pricing of product to be competitive in the market, and the improvement and diversity of products offered. Competitors must be monitored so the organisation can respond to stay ahead in the market. Woodright Industries did this by expanding its product line in the Christchurch branch which proved to be an advantage.
The more competitors a company has the more uncertainty there is in its environment and makes it more dynamic.Shareholders – In the beginning Russell was the sole proprietor of Woodright Industries, it wasnt until 1956 when his wife and father in-law were nominated shareholders and Russell became the Managing Director. Shareholders are needed to generate funds for expansion and Russells reluctance to do that cost Woodright Industries dearly. This shown when Malcolm said “Weve got to go public and raise the capital to grow bigger” and Russells reply was “Perhaps we will do that one day”.
Shareholders provide a company with a share of capital this can be monitored and more shares made available if necessary and this makes for a more stable environment.
Government and local bodies – Woodright Industries were not too bogged down by government regulations, they paid the exact Award wages no more or no less than they had to. But these days government regulations can cost an organisation time and money. Consider the implications of Russells behaviour when he sacked Simon without notice from Monday. These days the employment laws and regulations put limits on how what an employee can do.
Laws and regulations make a more stable environment.INDIRECT – These are the parts of the environment that can have an indirect effect on the organisations goal.Global – Woodright Industries was not initially affected by globalisation as this environment was quiet stable in 1951 when it only supplied to local builders. But as the years past it could have been affected by imported timbers causing competitive price wars.So its global environment was more stable at the beginning but could have become more dynamic later on.
Economic – Woodright Industries was in a fairly stable environment in the beginning as the global economy had more stability up to 1983. But indicated it had to cope with the downturn in business and the downturn in building, stimulated by the Roger Douglas deregulation and was glad it had diversified its product line to cushion that blow when the environment became more dynamic.
Political – This is about how government laws and policies can influence what an organisation can and can not do. Other than complying to the Award wage at the beginning, the government had little impact on its business. But later on, as new legislations and policies were introduced it would have had more impact on its resources of its time and money to comply with them and implement them.
Overall government policies make the environment more stable as it is predictable.Social – This is how the changing expectations of society can influences organisations. Woodright Industries now Homecare could be expected to accommodate more flexible work hours or onsite childcare facilities for mothers or even on site facilities for worship if they had muslim employees for instance.
As sociocultural aspects change companies therefore managers need to be aware of ways to adapt and provide for those changes. Recognising this and acting accordingly will have little impact on a stable environment.
Technological – Woodright Industries now Homecare would be affect by the rapid changes in technology with faster and even computerised mills and also the technological advances in computer systems for orders and cost of inventory management. This affects the ways organisations are structured and managed.
Keeping up with technology will make the environment more stable.2.The internal culture between 1951 and 1956 in Woodright Industries a small sawmilling company was strong.It was an Informal Bureaucracy with unartrist culture headed by Russell Willerton, with a defined hierarchy, strict rules and had impersonal relationships with its employees.
Management was primarily focused on high productivity and high returns regardless of the impact on its employees.The employees were expected to follow the rules at all times and never question management. Russell wanted the environment to be predictable.Risk was not tolerated and in fact was be penalised by being fired.Russell